1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Differences between research reports and religious scriptures?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Jim, Jan 16, 2020.

  1. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,290
    Ratings:
    +9,268
    Religion:
    None
    Waterfalls are designed to get water from up to down.
    I have heard about that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,169
    Ratings:
    +2,174
    Religion:
    personal development and community service, with love for nature
    “It was written.” :smiley:
     
  3. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,290
    Ratings:
    +9,268
    Religion:
    None
    No, you DO NOT HAVE A POINT.
     
  4. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,169
    Ratings:
    +2,174
    Religion:
    personal development and community service, with love for nature
    I’m glad to see that someone understands me. :smiley:
     
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,212
    Ratings:
    +2,496
    Religion:
    None
    There can certainly be some moving in the same direction but in the context of the OP, comparing scientific reports and religious scripture specifically is just wrong.
     
  6. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,169
    Ratings:
    +2,174
    Religion:
    personal development and community service, with love for nature
    Two against one, Aupmanyav. I say that my point was not what you thought it was, and Audie says I don’t have a point. Either way, you missed my point. :p
     
  7. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,169
    Ratings:
    +2,174
    Religion:
    personal development and community service, with love for nature
    The similarity that I’ve been discussing is in how people misuse them, and actually I’m not sure that anyone is denying that. I was comparing how people misuse scriptures and research, not the scriptures and research themselves. Seeing people telling me how different they are, started me wondering how different they really are.
     
    #27 Jim, Jan 16, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  8. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,241
    Ratings:
    +558
    Religion:
    None
    Depends what you mean by "process"
    The basic history of the bible is slowly emerging from the archaeologist's trowel.
    The notion that the universe created itself from nothing and for no reason has
    more problems than saying something outside of the universe created it.
    And the process of "proof" is not a corporate but individual one - the bible says
    that if you don't prove its precepts for yourself then you don't understand it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,290
    Ratings:
    +9,268
    Religion:
    None
    Ha. More of it is being buried by archaeology or other
    research than is being "uncovered".
    People used to think exodus and the flood were real history.

    Your facile analysis of theoretical astrophysics convinces
    nobody but yourself.

    The bible proves itself? All "sacred writings" have
    self promoting passages.

    Seems to me t hat among those who have read it,
    the "believers" are the ones who understand
    the bible the least.

    I can illustrate that with easy concrete examples,
    while I think it would be quite a trick to show that
    those who have "proved it to themselves" have
    any actual insights.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,290
    Ratings:
    +9,268
    Religion:
    None
    "Too clever by one half"
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Samantha Rinne

    Samantha Rinne Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,743
    Ratings:
    +572
    Religion:
    Writer of the Mune Shinri (Aiken religion)
    Peer review is garbage.

    Why would any sane person submit their idea to the opinion of a mob? The idea that an intellectual consensus equals a correct answer, is hardly new. Years ago, the idea was that sickness resulted from the body being clogged with gunk, so people were given enemas, or bled out, or sucked by leeches. There was even a fad of using sterilized tapeworms to manage body weight. Honestly, the last one might be good for America's morbid obese, but this is neither here nor there. The point is, this notion was wrong on a fundamental level, and people wasted away from having their vitality literally drained away.

    Or how about Code films? Some group of people decided that only wholesome films could play, and movies of this era were mostly boring. The thing is, years have passed and if you look at films today, the current market system has made a sort of Code of its own. Can't be politically incorrect (or overly edgy for that matter), while the 70s to mid 90s (Fast Times At Ridgemont High) had full nudity modern films have no breasts or sexual organs even in so-called R films, having phased any real sex into X rated (which never shows). The most interesting films were literally those where society wasn't concerned about eirher public morals or political correctness but producing a cool movie.

    When consensus rather than personal opinions reigns, we get stagnation.

    Here's another good example: The average book cannot be published with over 100,000 words. Supposedly, this is because after this length, a work is considered overwrought, and is immediately rejected by review. The thing is, a decent epic needs to be as long as it needs to be, and a decent trilogy, if self-contained will most likely be longer.
    Btw, the actual reason that a book must be this length? To save publishing costs, and maximize prifit. They also streamline book content so nothing is too shocking. But here's the problem: None of those books will be remembered in 20 years. Books that market well tend to be bland. On the other hand, The Communist Manifesto, The Bible, The Quran, Ayn Rand, Terry Goodkind, all of these are authors or books that had a profound effect on society. At the very least, they seem to be in every used book store.

    The Bible would not get published under the current review process. Nor would the Quran. Nor the Analects, nor the Vedas, nor the Tripitaka. The Tao te Ching would make it, but only because it's like 100ish pages.

    And yet these books receive worldwide acclaim. The Great Gatsby fits under this word count, yet it has nothing to say. The characters are boring cliches, and the entire book is about a bleak period of history where nobody had any spiritual drive.
     
    #31 Samantha Rinne, Jan 16, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  12. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,290
    Ratings:
    +9,268
    Religion:
    None
    You pretty much didnt need to say any more after this,
    as you only went on to show you dont know anything
    about how things are done in those distant ivory towers
    you've never entered.

    Academic journals frequently post their own articles
    on problems with peer review. It is no big secret that
    it is not perfect. No human endeavour is. See
    "religion" under that heading!

    Peer review is the best system that we've been able
    to devise. If you know how to improve it. by all
    means make a constructive effort.

    So far it is your comments are what is garbage,
    not the best system that scientists world wide have
    been able to devise.

    Your remarks are on the level of those who say
    that ToE is a big fat lie, thereby, of course, presenting
    themselves as knowing more than any scientist on
    earth. As if.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Asinine, socialist-leaning, puerile filth
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    7,120
    Ratings:
    +3,427
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable
    Quite right. We should ask the nearest religious congregation for their opinion (Oh ****, is that a mob?), or if that fails to show any appreciable measure of truth then the nearest religious authority will do - like the Pope, or some other similar with less qualifications to babble forth on whatever. If people with intense knowledge of a particular subject (and qualified as such) are not suitable to check a hypothesis who the **** are?

    Baby out with the bathwater comes to mind. :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,290
    Ratings:
    +9,268
    Religion:
    None
    Well, I quit after the first line, but you put the second one
    in so lets look at it...

    The idea that an intellectual consensus equals a correct answer, is hardly new.


    That is so mixed up that it is not even wrong!
    I wont try to untangle all of the confusion in it,
    but will comment that peer review is not about
    whether someone got a "Correct answer".

    I dont need to tell you what it is for, and our
    hero wont learn it from me, so I wont elabourate.
     
  15. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Asinine, socialist-leaning, puerile filth
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    7,120
    Ratings:
    +3,427
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable
    I suspect that - The idea that an intellectual consensus equals a correct answer - seems like a voting system to her, when it shouldn't be, but should at least throw up all likely objections and all possible alternatives. And in many cases, different opinions do just remain when there is no consensus view forthcoming. What happens with religious texts? That which suits the agenda of the religion surviving and thriving?
     
  16. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,290
    Ratings:
    +9,268
    Religion:
    None
    Our hero may not be aware that a researcher will be
    at some pains to include all the problems, alternate
    possibilities etc that he can think of, in the paper
    he is submitting for review.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    24,507
    Ratings:
    +10,406
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    I get a perfect match with my view down to 2020.
     
  18. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,996
    Ratings:
    +787
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Academia is great, science is great, except both institutions have left LOVE off their books. Academia talks constantly now about racial and social JUSTICE. Science talks about being without bias. The bias of "let's do science or academia in LOVE" is a HEALTHY bias.
     
  19. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    31,943
    Ratings:
    +12,920
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Whatever happens to people will have nothing to do with the validity or dismissal of the subject in question.

    It's apples and oranges. One is peer review and the other is wanton suppression.
     
  20. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    24,507
    Ratings:
    +10,406
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Tell me the problems. Is science hiding anything? OTH, what can you say other than 'Goddidit'. You may have proven it to yourself, but do not expect others to ditto your line. We find infinite holes there.
     
Loading...